Seems pretty accurate.

[trotsky]

[Arugula Latte]

1. I like.

Also, it's for people who pick and choose verrrry carefully which parts are "real" and which are just symbolic. For example, a worldwide flood? No, that's a story not meant to be taken literally. But a guy who was killed in Roman-controlled Judea 2,000 years ago coming back to Earth? Why yes, yes, that will happen eventually.

[onager]

3. Weird personal anecdote...

Last Xmas I was helping my mother put away the decorations. She's one of those people who goes nuts decorating. But on Dec. 26 she wants all that stuff GONE.

I was trying to put away one of her 47 Nativity scenes, in various sizes, and realized a key component was missing.

"Somebody kidnapped Baby Jesus," I said.

Out of the blue she said: "You don't believe that story, do you?"

"You know I don't."

And what she said next floored me: "I think a lot of us don't."

If Southern Baptists are starting to doubt the Baby Jesus story, maybe Dawkins WILL be the next Pope...

It was just a weird little moment and I didn't push it. She's old and the only mother I've got, and I don't like to piss her off in her own house. Especially during the holidays. I have Fundie relatives who piss her off a lot more than I can, anyway.

[Arugula Latte]

5. Interesting.

You have to wonder how many tens thousands of people just go along to get along because that's what's expected of them in the culture they're surrounded with.

It's just easier to believe, and a lot of people must spend a lot of their time and mental effort trying to tamp down their doubts. That explains a lot of the seemingly disproportionate hostility towards atheists, who remind them of their own battles with "faith."

[AlbertCat]

18. It's just easier to believe

Translation:

Not think about it too much.

[mr blur]

2. But isn't he a raging Islamophobic sexist pig?

Didn't I read that somewhere?

It's so hard to remember who we're allowed to like around here.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Eh, I mostly disagree.

There are plenty of religious moderates who know the scripture reasonably well. They just put themselves through the ringer trying to rationalize away all of the horrible shit they don't agree with.

On the other side of the coin, there's no shortage of extremist idiots who really have no fucking idea what their supposed holy book says.

Honestly, as verbose as he is, it sometimes sounds to me like Harris is writing for bumper stickers.

[trotsky]

8. You make a good point.

But I've found even among believers on DU, whom I would generally assume are more knowledgeable than the average believer, the level of scriptural ignorance is surprisingly high. This could be a product of being raised in a more liberal faith, which naturally would want to just avoid the nasty bits as much as possible. A version of don't ask, don't tell!

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. I can only speak from experience...

But I can say that Catholics generally aren't encouraged to read the Bible on their own. If they're practicing, they'll hear at least three readings every Sunday, which will be explained to them in painful detail by the priest. The effect is three-fold: 1) you get pretty well-acquainted with the more popular bits Bible after a number of years; but 2) there's a lot of shit the priests don't cover; and 3) your perception is invariably colored by the priest's homily.

It's actually kind of telling. When I was a kid, we were issued our first Bibles in the fourth grade. We were then made to read through the Pentateuch. For the next four years of schooling, we only read bits and pieces, almost exclusively from the New Testament. It's pretty obvious the RCC doesn't want you looking at the book too closely.

[trotsky]

14. Which is interesting given my experience...

growing up Lutheran. Our confirmation program was an "individualized" one; we were given packets that focused on one book of the bible at a time. Depending on the book, we'd have to read it and summarize, or read it and answer specific questions, etc. I ended up reading every word of every book of the New Testament. The doubts I had growing up were anything BUT allayed by doing that. So no wonder other churches might not be all that keen on you really reading that stuff.

[bvf]

9. You left out the religious left

who don't seem to know what they believe.

And lots of writers could be accused of writing for bumper stickers (or the cultural equivalent of their time) no doubt.

[trotsky]

11. Many of them seem to just make it up...

and then assume it's gotta be in the bible somewhere.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Or they don't care

Because you can't take that stuff literally, man...

[Heddi]

17. rofl

See ya round the bonfire

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Yeah, you can't take it literally, but you should still believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god

who couldn't communicate with us unambiguously.

[AlbertCat]

19. You forgot the "secular knowledge" part.

There are 2 parts to his statement.

It's the secular knowledge that makes those who do read scripture sorta blip over the icky parts.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Well, he says it is a product of both.

As if both are necessary for someone to become religiously moderate.

It could be that he's speaking about society in general, where some people become more aware of secularism and others more ignorant of scripture, but with a short snippet like that it is hard to tell what his intentions were.

Or the intentions of the person who made the image.

[AlbertCat]

21. he says it is a product of both.

That's why you shouldn't forget one of them!


And I know what you mean, but the "and" can also mean the two could also be at work separately.

But, as you obviously realize..... it's a bumper sticker, a platitude and not very exacting.

[Silent3]

6. Since many people will continue to be religious, however, that sad thing is...

...that we're dependent on liberal and moderate cherry-picking and scriptural ignorance to make life at all livable. If all religious people stuck strictly to their faiths, life would be hell.

[bvf]

7. True. And if all religious people walked

completely away from their faith, we'd have a lot more rational people and a lot fewer dead.

[onager]

10. I'm not sure about that.

There's certainly no guarantee that people who walk away from religion will walk toward the side of rationality.

Just based on what I've seen, they're equally likely to walk straight toward something "better" than their previous beliefs. Like $cientology, cash-grabbing exotic swamis, or free-floating spiritualism/psychic claptrap. Or they'll substitute God/Jesus for the idea of interplanetary alien overlords who are visiting and sometimes anally probing us.

[bvf]

16. Ah.

"There's certainly no guarantee that people who walk away from religion will walk toward the side of rationality."

I can see your point, but I view things like scientology and free-floating spiritualism (love that term) as no less rational than religion in general. In fact, my take is that "free-floating spiritualist" would be an apt description of anyone who cherry-picks his or her beliefs from whatever supposedly sacred text represents that individual's religion.

The thing for me boils down to belief in the supernatural, I suppose.

Again though, I get what you're saying.

[RussBLib]

15. It is sometimes difficult...

...to ascertain if the person in question (Harris) actually ever said what is being attributed to them.

A whole lot of people have Photoshop these days (I'm sure there are less expensive programs out there).